9mm Defense rounds #2

Ok guys, lets continue the conversation on 9mm defense rounds. This time let's not have the bickering and nonsense that dominated the other "Defence" thread or I will shut it down long before the mods do.

With that said...what say you?:D

I gravitate toward 147gr HPs and they dont need to be premium stuff.

What are your thoughts and do you have any experiments with pictures to show us your research?

I personally feel that a heavier bullet weight is better, but I think that correct shot placement is #1 and penetration is vital. The 9mm Luger has had a long history of police, military and defensive use and is still regarded as more than adequate. Whatever works reliably in your firearm and is something you can shoot accurately will do! :)

ku4hx

November 19, 2012, 12:56 PM

I like, well ... all the "major" brands: Remington, Speer, Winchester, Cor-Bon, Federal and etc. At one time or another, all have been adequately tested (the respective factory, FBI and etc.) and found to about as good as you can expect. None are perfect, there is no magic bullet, shot placement is indeed king and frankly ammunition choice is little more than an educated guess at best.

I go with the heavier bullet choices for SD: 124 grain for 9mm, 180 grain for 40 cal/10mm and 230 grain for 45 ACP generally although I do sometimes consider season and expected clothing and go with 150/155 for 10mm.

481

November 19, 2012, 01:58 PM

I gravitate toward 147gr HPs and they dont need to be premium stuff.

What are your thoughts and do you have any experiments with pictures to show us your research?

If you like 9mm 147 gr. "not premium" JHPs, this might be of interest you-

I tested this round in water (a valid tissue simulant) quite some time ago and the analysis below uses the recovery data to yield a prediction of the test bullet's performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.

The "carry" 9s for me are a LC9 currently and a G26 on the way. I've boarded the SB bandwagon, and load with Speer GDSB. Accurate, controllable, reduced muzzle flash, engineered for short barrels. Factory version of what I would handload.

There are many loads that will get the job done, but I have confidence in this one - and that's one less concern. Shot placement is key.

I can post water test results of the 115 gr WWB PP JHPs, too....if you are interested in them.

frank c

November 19, 2012, 06:38 PM

9mm federal 135 gr.tactical HP,winchester ranger 127 gr.+P.:fire:

wally

November 19, 2012, 07:30 PM

Where you place the bullet on the target is far more important than which particular bullet it happens to be -- as long as its capable of achieving adequate penetration.

I'll always carry the heaviest bullet for the caliber, which means if I carried a 9mm I'd carry 147gr ammo.

C0untZer0

November 19, 2012, 09:33 PM

I go with the heavier bullet choices for SD: 124 grain for 9mm

124gr is not a heavier bullet choice - except that it's heavier than 105 - 115gr And 124gr is the common bullet weight for NATO 9mm ammunition - so I woudn't consider it on the heaver side of the spectrum.

135gr - 147gr would be the heavier standard loadings in 9mm.

Steve C

November 20, 2012, 12:26 AM

If a JHP fails to expand in water, it won't expand under any circumstances. Many of the standard JHP's will expand under ideal conditions, that being light clothing and a long enough barrel to achieve sufficient velocity.

The a fore mentioned Winchester 147gr JHP USA ammo failed to expand after passing through the FBI protocol 4 layers of denim in this and an earlier test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptdL842BAqo&playnext=1&list=PLB56C838D41121C1A&feature=results_video

There are many other 147 gr JHP's that will expand after passing through denim as well as other weights. Notably the more premium ammo like the Winchester Ranger, SXT's, PDX1, Federal HST, Remington Golden Sabers, and Speer Gold Dots perform better.

Check out other 9mm tests by tnoudoors9 on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=winchester+9mm+tnoutdoors9&oq=winchester+9mm+tnoutdoors9&gs_l=youtube.3...26864.30760.0.32011.11.11.0.0.0.0.133.1094.7j4.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.8k1wd0WU0vE

2zulu1

November 20, 2012, 12:38 AM

Thought I would share a few pictures, both the HST and TAP CQ share the same 1150fps MV, but they are designed for different expansion ratios and therefore theoretically penetrate to different depths.

MacPherson's numbers were calculated by 481. Both bullets passed the 4LD test w/o any problems.

If a JHP fails to expand in water, it won't expand under any circumstances. Many of the standard JHP's will expand under ideal conditions, that being light clothing and a long enough barrel to achieve sufficient velocity.

The a fore mentioned Winchester 147gr JHP USA ammo failed to expand after passing through the FBI protocol 4 layers of denim in this and an earlier test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptdL842BAqo&playnext=1&list=PLB56C838D41121C1A&feature=results_video

There are many other 147 gr JHP's that will expand after passing through denim as well as other weights. Notably the more premium ammo like the Winchester Ranger, SXT's, PDX1, Federal HST, Remington Golden Sabers, and Speer Gold Dots perform better.

I am not so sure that I'd be so quick to condemn the performance of the WWB 147 gr. JHP in that case.

was that the expansion cavity of the WWB was clogged with newsprint from the wetpack which means that the denim layers had to have been dislodged prior to the introduction of the the newsprint material into the cavity. An expansion cavity plugged with newsprint will also fail to upset and expand since the newsprint inhibits the hydraulic force that drives expansion and is one of the reasons that I test in water only.

I couldn't help but notice that the round fired into water expanded almost as much as mine and wonder if tnoutdoors would've had the same results that I had, had he used a "water only" medium behind four layers of denim instead of the wetpack that was used in the test.

Steve C

November 20, 2012, 01:40 AM

Here is a test with the usa white box 147gr that showed better results after passing through denim and into ballistic gel. No actual bullet expansion measurement or chronograph results though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhYDihaWkS0

C0untZer0

November 20, 2012, 08:25 AM

Just a blurb on the 4 denim "test" - a technicality, but it's not an FBI testing protocol. It is an engineering evaluation tool setup by Duncan MacPherson in an effort with the California Highway Patrol.

It is different from the FBI heavy clothing test. The FBI Heavy Clothing Test Event is a gelatin block covered with four layers of clothing: one layer of cotton T-shirt material (48 threads per inch); one layer of cotton shirt material (80 threads per inch); a 10 ounce down comforter in a cambric shell cover (232 threads per inch); and one layer of 13 ounce cotton denim (50 threads per inch). The block is shot at ten feet, measured from the muzzle to the front of the block.

But the 4-denim over a block, is a simple exercise that people can do - as oppossed to getting a T-shirt, 80-thread cotton shirt, peice of denim and a 10 ounce down comforter in a cambric shell cover (232 threads per inch). So it's developed into a standard that people like TNOUTDOORS9 use when they make their videos.

otasan56

November 20, 2012, 08:48 AM

I carry WW115gr JHP +p+ in my G17. 1400 FPS is a hot load.

kokapelli

November 20, 2012, 09:05 AM

If you like 9mm 147 gr. "not premium" JHPs, this might be of interest you-

I tested this round in water (a valid tissue simulant) quite some time ago and the analysis below uses the recovery data to yield a prediction of the test bullet's performance in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin.

Because water cannot be compressed it can never be a legitimate medium for bullet testing, nor can it be compared to gelatin tests or to predict performance in living tissue.

mljdeckard

November 20, 2012, 09:18 AM

Not really.

The philosophy behind 147 grain is that a heavier bullet will penetrate further. But modern bonded 9mm bullets have leveled the playing field so much, that even in the last ten years, even 115 gr 9mm is much more effective than it used to be. In the real world, I doubt there is much perceptible difference at all in their performance.

My wife is a new shooter, and I got her an XD-9. I handloaded some 147 grain ammo for her to try, and the recoil was a bit harsh. She switched back to a magazine of 115 gr, and liked it much better. I THINK, if she likes it more, and she will be willing to shoot it more, that is the correct round to use.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 10:08 AM

481,

Yess, I would like to see your results on the 115gr rounds.

Thanks.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 10:27 AM

Countzero,

The WWB are supposedly updated from what I have read. Upon looking at the bullets over the last three years, the nose cavity has changed from a restricted opening to that of being more opened.

Would you guys think this would be a good round to carry though it failed the expansion part of the FBI test?

C0untZer0

November 20, 2012, 10:47 AM

Only if I carried it for self-protection in a nudist colony.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 11:03 AM

Hmmm...though it failed the FBI test I wonder if its good performance in the denim test is significant. Though water cannot be compressed in a closed system, it can be shifted if given the ability to do so and this would seemingly alter test results?

481

November 20, 2012, 11:09 AM

Because water cannot be compressed it can never be a legitimate medium for bullet testing, nor can it be compared to gelatin tests or to predict performance in living tissue.

k,

Actually water has already been long proven to be an acceptable ballistic test medium.

The FBI uses it as a screening medium as described in, "Applied Wound Ballistics: What’s New and What’s True":

Water can be used as a tissue simulant and causes just slightly more bullet deformation than gelatin or soap; the Firearms Training Unit of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation uses it as a screening mechanism to decide which bullets expand well enough to merit further scrutiny.

In Chapter 2 of Quantitative Ammunition Selection, Schwartz describes the physics (re: bulk modulus, internal speed of sound, density) that show water to be a dynamically equivalent ballistic test medium to ordnance gelatin-

From the website:
Chapter 2 addresses the principles of mechanics, fluid dynamics, and thermodynamics underlying the quantitative model and establishes the dynamic equivalence of water and calibrated ordnance gelatin as ballistic test mediums.

- and MacPherson discusses the issue at length devoting the whole of Chapter 7 of Bullet Penetration and also specifies an optional test method using water in Chapter 10.

Both models (in QAS and BP) can be, and have been, used to predict successfully and accurately the ballistic performance of bullets in ordnance gelatin using water as a test medium.

According to the QAS website, that specific model was developed using data from over 700 gelatin tests and is as accurate as one could expect-

Based upon a modified fluid dynamics equation that correlates highly (r = +0.94) to more than 700 points of manufacturer- and laboratory-test data, the quantitative model allows the use of water to generate terminal ballistic test results equivalent to those obtained in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin. Besides including a variable for the density of soft tissue, the quantitative model employs a material strength variable within its governing expression that allows for the computational evaluation of any type of soft tissue. Within a confidence interval of 95%, the quantitative model predicts the terminal penetration depth of projectiles in calibrated ordnance gelatin with a margin of error of one centimeter. The quantitative model accurately predicts the permanent wound cavity volume and mass, terminal penetration depth, and exit velocity of handgun projectiles as these phenomena would occur in calibrated ten percent ordnance gelatin and soft tissue.

481 the fact that the FBI only uses water as a preliminary test medium and that Ballistic Gelatin is used to determine how a bullet will actually perform in the field is exactly my point. Water simply does not determine how a bullet will function in tissue nearly as well as Gelatin.

The people that quote water tests in these forums just assume that if the bullet expands in water it will expand in tissue and that is simply not always the case.

481 the fact that the FBI only uses water as a preliminary test medium and that Ballistic Gelatin is used to determine how a bullet will actually perform in the field is exactly my point. Water simply does not determine how a bullet will function in tissue nearly as well as Gelatin.

The people that quote water tests in these forums just assume that if the bullet expands in water it will expand in tissue and that is simply not always the case.

Until something better comes along I'll stick with gelatin tests.

Actually, I don't see water as proof that the bullet will expand in gelatin, but rather as a negative discriminatory instrument- that is, if it won't expand in water, it probably won't expand in gelatin.

Since I have no desire to argue proven physics with you, I'll just leave it at this...

The munitions engineers, ballisticians, and their research on the dynamic equivalence of water and ordnance gelatin is thorough, accurate, and supported by numerous highly correlated data.

Taken from here refering specifically to the QAS model- http://quantitativeammunitionselection.com/endorsements_-_faq

"I believe this model to be viable, logically deduced, and no more complicated than it should be for its intended purpose. It offers the armed professional a method of acquiring vital information about the performance of his/her own self-defense ammunition, shot from his/her own handgun, without the expense and complications of full-scale laboratory tests."
-Mr. Thomas Johansson, Development Engineer
CBJ Tech AB, Kungsbacka, Sweden

Although I acknowledge your right to disregard all of these works, it is of no consequence to those bodies of research and the proven methodology therein- they still remain quite valid.

:)

BSA1

November 20, 2012, 11:50 AM

While Internet discussions and really cool videos of shooting things are informative they are meaningless until you test your ammunition in your gun. It is not hard to sit up test media, (clothing, water jugs, blocks of ice, sheetrook, 2x4's), of materials you will commonly encounter in the real world.

Plus shooting things is fun.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 12:02 PM

Thanks 481...impressive.

Kokapelli,
Though I agree that the gel is the standard, I think we need to consider the use of water as well. Both are useful and both still only approximate results found if an actual person were to be shot given the varied composition of the human body. Very helpful, yes...definitive, no.

Both you guys certainly know more than I, and thanks for your continued input.

otasan56

November 20, 2012, 12:05 PM

Don't forget CorBon.

481

November 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

Thanks 481...impressive.

No problem.

If you haven't read the books (Quantitative Ammunition Selection and Bullet Penetration) that I've mentioned, I recommend both of them highly.

I have also tested the 9mm Hornady 147 gr. XTP (a couple of times) and the 9mm Winchester 147 gr PDX1 in water if you wish to have a look at those test results.

Godsgunman

November 20, 2012, 12:21 PM

Alright, not sure if I'll be tarred and feathered for this or not, but I'm not a big fan of the "FBI standard testing". Sure the calibrated gelatin probably gives a decent enough representation of soft tissue penetration. For me personally that doesn't mean much. I would like to see more data with rib/bone penetration. Lets face it, if you hit where you are taught (COM) then the bullet will most likely have to penetrate sternum and/or ribs plus far enough to severly damage the heart or lungs. From the small testing that I have done personally has lead me to the conclusion that while the ideal is to have both good expansion and penetration, I lean more towards the penetration factor. I have learned through my own testing through my main carry gun that Hornady XTP for instance is not a good choice for me, great expansion but to little penetration for my likings.
The data we get from the FBI and similar tests are good for what they are worth. The best advise I can say is to do your own tests and see what works best for what you want it to accomplish with the gun you will be using it in.

mavracer

November 20, 2012, 12:25 PM

I look at it this way Winchester Ranger T series will expand consistantly through a wider range of medium and a wider range of velocity than WWWB. So no matter how often WWWB will work, Rangers will work more often.
It's not the odds that matters here it's the stakes.

mavracer

November 20, 2012, 12:28 PM

Alright, not sure if I'll be tarred and feathered for this or not, but I'm not a big fan of the "FBI standard testing". Sure the calibrated gelatin probably gives a decent enough representation of soft tissue penetration. For me personally that doesn't mean much. I would like to see more data with rib/bone penetration.
You do realize that FBI testing includes putting several other medium in front of said gel.

ETA: This bullet is the same bullet that Winchester loads in the Winchester Ranger 147 gr Bonded JHP (RA9B).

481

November 20, 2012, 01:04 PM

I look at it this way Winchester Ranger T series will expand consistantly through a wider range of medium and a wider range of velocity than WWWB. So no matter how often WWWB will work, Rangers will work more often.
It's not the odds that matters here it's the stakes.

mav,

Guessing that the Ranger "T" stuff appeals to you, here are the water test results of the Winchester 9mm 147 gr Ranger T-

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

tuj

November 20, 2012, 01:58 PM

Check out ASYM Precision's (Stan Chen's company) 9mm loads. They have an SDX 115 +P offering that I'm using in my defense gun. I also use their competition loads in my bullseye guns and they are very very good.

http://store.chencustom.com/category_s/113.htm

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 02:03 PM

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.

Godsgunman, you've got a good point there with regard to the FBI tests.

Godsgunman

November 20, 2012, 02:04 PM

Hey mavracer,
Do you know where I can see such data of the FBI tests with bone material? I would appreciate it. I have only seen bare gelatin and gelatin with denim results. Thanks :)

481,
What barrel length are your tests done with?

481

November 20, 2012, 02:08 PM

I'd like to see as many 9mm tests you feel like posting, 481, if thats not asking too much, you seem to be doing your homework quite well.

OK, I have a few that are ready to post.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 02:16 PM

Thanks 481, and I"ll look into those two books you recommended.

481

November 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

Do you know where I can see such data of the FBI tests with bone material?
FBI doesn't use bone although I've seen brassfetcher uses a bone simulated material.
in addition to the bare and heavy clothing test FBI protocol uses auto glass, plywood, sheet rock and sheet metal I think there are 10 total tests. I figure if it'll go through laminated auto glass a rib would be easy.

481

November 20, 2012, 02:23 PM

I would like to see your test results for the 147gr. XTP's. I will be carrying 147gr. rounds in my Gen 4 G17.

It seems to me that he took known depths for bullet penetration and depth in ordnance gel and then mixed the Sim test media until the bullets were penetrating and expanding to those already known marks.

From what I can see his results are generally in line with other tests w/calibrated ordnance gelatin.

mavracer

November 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

Both models (in QAS and BP) can be, and have been, used to predict successfully and accurately the ballistic performance of bullets in ordnance gelatin using water as a test medium.

According to the QAS website, that specific model was developed using data from over 700 gelatin tests and is as accurate as one could expect-
One of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes is
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

The actual gel tests I've seen have the RA9T load out expanding the RA9B with the RA9B having more penatration.

C0untZer0

November 20, 2012, 04:06 PM

The Hydra Shoks have always been the most accurate for me. I've gotten my tightest groups using Hydra-Shok, just something about that cartridge or bullet design or whatever - they're spot on.

But when I look at recovered Ranger - RA9T and I look at the recovered Hydra-Shoks, I like the Rangers better :D

Plus I just like that the RA9T consistently penetrates to 14" through different barriers and consistently expands to around .66"

481

November 20, 2012, 04:37 PM

One of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes is
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

Trite platitudes are very entertaining, but rarely prove anything.

As I said earlier, I have absolutely no desire to debate the proven physics of these models. Clearly, these models have been assembled by those knowledgeable in the field (e.g.: Schwartz and MacPherson) and appear to have been vetted by other independent sources, one example being taken from here-

http://quantitativeammunitionselection.com/endorsements_-_faq

referring specifically to the model in Quantitative Ammunition Selection, to wit;

"I believe this model to be viable, logically deduced, and no more complicated than it should be for its intended purpose. It offers the armed professional a method of acquiring vital information about the performance of his/her own self-defense ammunition, shot from his/her own handgun, without the expense and complications of full-scale laboratory tests."
-Mr. Thomas Johansson, Development Engineer
CBJ Tech AB, Kungsbacka, Sweden

Please do not take this as picking on you (because that is certainly not my intention- I am simply expressing from whom and where I prefer to draw my information), but I'll have to defer to the professional opinions of those educated individuals who have the experience in the field that makes them qualified to render knowledgeable evaluations of these models over the opinions of those who lack any demonstrable qualification(s) to comment on such matters.

The actual gel tests I've seen have the RA9T load out expanding the RA9B with the RA9B having more penatration.

Perhaps you'll see fit to share those examples here as I am sure that others (including me) would like to see them.

9mmforMe

November 20, 2012, 05:06 PM

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to test any 115gr RN FMJ? I'm wondering about penetration depths considering there are quite a few folks, who have expressed in this forum, that they use FMJ for defensive purposes.

1911 mike

November 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

In my 32 years working for the government (and that's as far as I go)we were issued several different rounds as the years went by, but in the last 4 years before retiring we were issued Speer 147grn. And I have seen personally what that round will do. In 3 different shootings all 3 men died and the end results from that 147 grn bullet was very impressive. I do not carry a 9mm now that I'm retired as I favor the .45 but I would stand behind the 147 if I were carrying the 9mm. Just my $0.02 worth...

C0untZer0

November 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

Winchester's own site has the RA9T penetrating 14.5" and expanding to .66" with the 4 layer denim "test" while they show the RA9B penetrating 16.5" and only expanding .59" in the same test. The relationship of deeper penetration and less expansion of the RA9B when compared to the RA9T is also evident in the bare gel and heavy cloth tests.

I like Gold Dots and Federal HST. If not for their QC going to sh.it, I would select Ranger as well.

147gr is good, especially in shorter barrels. The 124 +P Gold Dot is great too, and is my favorite.

481

November 20, 2012, 06:41 PM

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to test any 115gr RN FMJ? I'm wondering about penetration depths considering there are quite a few folks, who have expressed in this forum, that they use FMJ for defensive purposes.

It funny that you ask, but yeah, I have tested one (you'll see why in just a moment ;)) 9mm FMJ in water- a Federal 124 gr. FMJ at a chronographed 1143 fps from my G17.

Knowing that it would probably blow through a lot of water, I set up about 120 inches of water column (that is 18 :what: one gallon freezer bags full of water set "width-wise" along the length and past the end of the water box) primarily for the sake of seeing just how far it would go.

As might be expected, it didn't deform at all (it miked at a perfect 0.353" +/- 0.001" all the way around and 0.604" +/- 0.001" long) and I recovered it ~77½ inches down the length of the box. Nothing spectacular occurred- just a dozen half-emptied bags of water. :scrutiny: Kind of a waste... :p

Neither model, Schwartz's nor MacPherson's, requires that non-expanding designs (FMJRNs, FMJFPs, SWCs, etc) be test-fired since it is presumed that they will not deform significantly in water- in order to use the model(s), just use their nominal bore diameters (0.354" for the 9mm, 0.451" for the .45ACP- you get the idea) to get their predicted penetration depths and mass within the perm. wound cavity.

For a 9mm 115 gr FMJRN at 1155 fps (typical factory specs)-

-the Schwartz bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 26.3 inches and permanently crush 1.073 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

-the MacPherson bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 28.1 inches and permanently crush 1.152 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

ETA: For those who like to use FMJs in the .45ACP...

For a 230 gr FMJRN @ 835 fps

-the Schwartz bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 25.1 inches and permanently crush 1.661 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

-the MacPherson bullet penetration model says that it'll penetrate to a depth of 29.5 inches and permanently crush 1.964 ounces of soft tissue over that distance

Walkalong

November 20, 2012, 08:17 PM

Two posts went away. Lets play nice. Do not attack posters themselves. Address the content, but leave the personal stuff out. Agree, or disagree, politely, or don't post.

This is an interesting thread. Let's keep it that way. :)

kokapelli

November 20, 2012, 08:41 PM

There are so many arguments about bullet effectiveness like energy dump, expansion, penetration, momentum and on and on and just like politics there advocates for each and every argument, so I have long ago decided that the best argument is what I can see in a gelatin block and the rest are just theories and speculation.

CZ57

November 20, 2012, 09:32 PM

I agree. The first meaningful (to me) information that I've seen is the work done by BTG Research that explains what the effect of kinetic energy actually means in wound ballistics. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

Jaymo

November 20, 2012, 10:26 PM

Did anyone notice, on the Winchester site, the .357 Sig didn't perform as well as the 9mm?

I never felt a strong need for a .357 Sig, and now, I want one even less.

Yes, the performance of that .357 Sig load is a bit underwhelming compared to some of the other offerings- the .357 Sig is definitely meant to appeal to agencies/individuals who favor the rather singular dimension of KE as a means of evaluating the performance of a bullet in addition to chasing the highly unreliable and extremely minute effects that many attribute to KE. Not surprisingly, such misguided notions focus on trivial effects that simply do not matter in the real world- the most reliable mechanisms for achieving immediate incapacitation remain severe blood loss and disruption of the CNS.

In fact, Duncan MacPherson offers an informed technical perspective on the fallacy of using KE to evaluate/analyze terminal ballistic performance-

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Bullet Penetration by Duncan MacPherson:
“. . . every now and then someone wants to analyze or think about a problem involving energy, and when they attempt to do this without really understanding energy or other thermodynamic concepts the result is unfortunate. One such problem is the analysis of any of the various aspects of terminal ballistics; some individuals with inadequate technical training and experience have unwisely and unproductively attempted to use energy concepts in the analysis of bullet impact and penetration in soft tissue. (Many others have simply assumed that energy is the dominant effect in Wound Trauma Incapacitation; this assumption is even more simplistic than the attempt to actually analyze the dynamics problem with energy relationships, and is no more successful).

Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be analyzed that way and only someone without the requisite technical background would try. Many individuals who have not had technical training have nonetheless heard of Newton’s laws of motion, but most of them aren’t really familiar with these laws and would be surprised to learn Newton’s laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships. The dynamic variable that is conserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not only not conserved in real collisions, but is transferred into thermal energy in a way that usually cannot be practically modeled. The energy in collisions can be traced, but usually only by solving the dynamics by other means and then determining the energy flow.”

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated aerospace engineer (a "rocket scientist"), who developed new guidance techniques and equations that were used to guide the Mercury astronauts into orbit on the Atlas launch vehicle. These equations were modified under his supervision to control the Gemini launches and later, the Apollo launches. These systems engineering activities were not primarily related to trajectory dynamics, but provided the background in other engineering disciplines that was required to derive the bullet penetration model.

A similar perspective is also offered in Quantitative Ammunition Selection-

Excerpt from Quantitative Ammunition Selection by Charles Schwartz:
While a projectile in motion possesses both momentum and kinetic energy, the penetration of a transient projectile through a homogenous fluid or hydrocolloidal medium constitutes an inelastic collision mandating that it be treated as a momentum transaction. Therefore, a momentum-based analysis of projectile motion is the most equitable approach in constructing a terminal ballistic performance model. Although it may be possible to devise a mathematical model based upon the expenditure of a projectile’s kinetic energy as it traverses a medium, there is nothing to be gained from the pursuit of such an unnecessarily complex approach.

:)

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 12:13 AM

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated engineer as well as a disciple of Martin Fackler who's emphasis is little more than penetration being the answer to the question of handgun stopping power with nothing really new or persuasive on the issue.

Better to look at the research conducted by an MIT educated PHd in physics who can describe exactly what the effects of energy are and not just theorize with nothing more conclusive than gelatin testing. There have been 33 autopsies conducted that conclude that Dr. Courtney is on to something very important to those who will listen. I encourage anyone who can drop their bias for a second and consider the information presented to look at: http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

And as to regards concerning the .357 SIG, it is the caliber used by the Texas DPS and the US Secret Sevice. No other agency has more actual gunfighting experience than the Texas DPS/Rangers. That's a historical fact rather than a biased opinion. Take a look at the results at www.m4carbine.net, it's pretty clear what loads perform and what doesn't and this from a listing advocated by another Fackler disciple, Dentist "Doc" Roberts.

wlewisiii

November 21, 2012, 12:15 AM

When I carried a Glock 19 daily, I loaded it with Winchester Talon 127gr. JHP +P+. It was accurate, easy to shoot & had an excellent police track record. Good enough for me.

These days if I'm worried about 2 legs, I carry a .32 ACP. If I'm worried about 4 legs I carry a .45 Colt. I don't own a 9mm anymore.

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 12:56 AM

What I carry for animals two legged or 4 legged is the 185 gr. +P Golden Saber in .45 ACP with 534 Ft/Lbs of KE with a momentum of 30 that is considered to be the highest practical momentum for handgun cartridges.

If I were a LE officer mandated to use the 9mm it would be the Ranger 127 gr. +P+ or the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot. Either load has more momentum and energy than a subsonic standard pressure 147 gr. JHP load. ;)

C0untZer0

November 21, 2012, 08:44 AM

I don't think MacPherson was or is a "disciple" of Fackler. They were working in two different fields and MacPherson wrote his critique of the American Rifleman article in 1975, in which he crticized the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII)

The Courtney's are re-investigating the concept of hydrostatic shock, with a focus on neurological effects.

OK, cool

God bless em. I hope they add to the total body of knowledge. There is a lot to learn in that field. Even the NFL is learning a lot of new things about concussions and short, intermediate and long term effects of blunt force trauma to the brain and nervous system.

From what I can see, their research makes a case for the existence of hydrostatic shock - but doesn't go the next step in evaluating various handgun rounds for effectiveness. They don't have an experiment that validates their hypothesis so they turn to the flawed M&S assertions which they generously call the OSS data set. And the goat tests.

I'm sorry but they don't have enough.

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.

IMO - probably the CLOSEST thing they have to support their ideas is the anecdotal body of knowledge surrounding the Illinois State Police use of the Federal 9BPLE 115gr +P+ load, but that's hardly scientific.

481

November 21, 2012, 10:27 AM

I don't think MacPherson was or is a "disciple" of Fackler. They were working in two different fields and MacPherson wrote his critique of the American Rifleman article in 1975, in which he crticized the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII)

I was unaware of that article. Gonna have to look that one up.

The Courtney's are re-investigating the concept of hydrostatic shock, with a focus on neurological effects.

OK, cool

God bless em. I hope they add to the total body of knowledge. There is a lot to learn in that field. Even the NFL is learning a lot of new things about concussions and short, intermediate and long term effects of blunt force trauma to the brain and nervous system.

From what I can see, their research makes a case for the existence of hydrostatic shock - but doesn't go the next step in evaluating various handgun rounds for effectiveness. They don't have an experiment that validates their hypothesis so they turn to the flawed M&S assertions which they generously call the OSS data set. And the goat tests.

I'm sorry but they don't have enough.

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.

IMO - probably the CLOSEST thing they have to support their ideas is the anecdotal body of knowledge surrounding the Illinois State Police use of the Federal 9BPLE 115gr +P+ load, but that's hardly scientific.

I agree.

Assuming for the sake of argument that bpw could be reliably produced, its contribution to incapacitation is miniscule at best (microscopic hemorraging in tiny blood vessels) and lacks the systemic magnitude to contribute to the incapacitation of an assailant with the necessary immediacy. Long before someone succumbs to the trivial effects of a few microscopic tears in a few tiny blood vessels, the effects of severe blood loss and structural tissue damage (e.g.: CNS) from the wound (or wounds) itself will have long since done the job.

The difficulty in discriminating the tremendously small (immediate) and long-time scale effects of bpw (and any contribution that they may make aside from the primary mechanisms of severe blood loss and CNS/vital tissue damage) suggests that bpw is of little realistic or significant value over the time scales that are necessary to achieve the immediate incapacitation of an assailant. After all, the desired outcome of firing a gun to save one's life is to bring about the immediate and sudden incapacitation of the person or persons intent on doing you grave physical harm of worse- it is unrealistic to miniscule effects that might have an effect over longer time scales, if they occur, is simply not the best answer.

ddc

November 21, 2012, 12:40 PM

"bpw" ?

Borland Pascal for Windows?
Board of Public Works?
Basal Pulse Width?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

This is a great discussion, learning a lot. Thanks.

mavracer

November 21, 2012, 12:57 PM

They have a gap between showing evidence of some signs of neurological damage due to a shock wave and actually picking cartridges that are effective and are effective precisely because of the shock wave and not due to the round damaging vital tissue with it's wound channel / permanent crush cavity.
Count, the same can be said in reverse and has some obvious medical standing.

The difficulty in discriminating the tremendously small (immediate) and long-time scale effects of bpw (and any contribution that they may make aside from the primary mechanisms of severe blood loss and CNS/vital tissue damage) suggests that bpw is of little realistic or significant value over the time scales that are necessary to achieve the immediate incapacitation of an assailant.
You guys don't seem to be applying simple medical knowledge to your assertions.
Count, the same can be said in reverse and has some obvious medical standing.
The brain and CNS can continue to function the body for 15-30 seconds after a complete cardiac arrest, yet some animals (humans are animals too after all) are imediatly incapcitated from a chest shot even though there is no direct CNS damage.
BPW and the temporary wound channel are both very much capable of being signifigant means of incapcitation.
Fackler was a fool to claim 2000fps was a magic # for TWC to be meaningful, when he should have known dang good and well that 1500 is more than enough for TWC to be meaningful and yet 3000 doesn't guarentee that TWC will be meaningful.
For the record I'm definately not advocating using energy as an important determining factor. Placement, penatration and expansion all take precident but to ignore it or say it's not a factor is IMHO foolish.
BTW Dr. Courtney is a member here and quite enlightning to talk to I believe his work more than establish levels for the amount of energy for BPW to a factor. the search function will bring up several discussions he's been involved in if your inclined to learn.;)

C0untZer0

November 21, 2012, 01:26 PM

Ballistic
Pressure
Wave

PT92

November 21, 2012, 02:34 PM

Hard to define "The Best" SD Ammo as it is dependent on so many variables including objectivity (or a lack thereof). That said, I feel entirely confident/comfortable using 9mm +P Hornady CRITICAL DUTY 135 gr JHP in my guns. I trust this fellow's reviews and overall ballistic testing methodology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZFZFmBKa0

-Happy Thanksgiving

2zulu1

November 21, 2012, 03:30 PM

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated engineer as well as a disciple of Martin Fackler who's emphasis is little more than penetration being the answer to the question of handgun stopping power with nothing really new or persuasive on the issue.

Better to look at the research conducted by an MIT educated PHd in physics who can describe exactly what the effects of energy are and not just theorize with nothing more conclusive than gelatin testing. There have been 33 autopsies conducted that conclude that Dr. Courtney is on to something very important to those who will listen. I encourage anyone who can drop their bias for a second and consider the information presented to look at: http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm ;)

And as to regards concerning the .357 SIG, it is the caliber used by the Texas DPS and the US Secret Sevice. No other agency has more actual gunfighting experience than the Texas DPS/Rangers. That's a historical fact rather than a biased opinion. Take a look at the results at www.m4carbine.net, it's pretty clear what loads perform and what doesn't and this from a listing advocated by another Fackler disciple, Dentist "Doc" Roberts.
Conspicuously absent from the website you linked to is the fact that Courtney never contracted with a military branch/LEA to perform terminal ballistic research.

FWIW, I personally asked Courtney this question before he began using the pseudonym of Pasteur.

2zulu1

November 21, 2012, 03:45 PM

Alright, not sure if I'll be tarred and feathered for this or not, but I'm not a big fan of the "FBI standard testing". Sure the calibrated gelatin probably gives a decent enough representation of soft tissue penetration. For me personally that doesn't mean much. I would like to see more data with rib/bone penetration. Lets face it, if you hit where you are taught (COM) then the bullet will most likely have to penetrate sternum and/or ribs plus far enough to severly damage the heart or lungs. From the small testing that I have done personally has lead me to the conclusion that while the ideal is to have both good expansion and penetration, I lean more towards the penetration factor. I have learned through my own testing through my main carry gun that Hornady XTP for instance is not a good choice for me, great expansion but to little penetration for my likings.
The data we get from the FBI and similar tests are good for what they are worth. The best advise I can say is to do your own tests and see what works best for what you want it to accomplish with the gun you will be using it in.
I also enjoy bullet testing through a multitude of different intermediate barriers, including bone. While it would be better to use fresh cow or pig bones from a slaughter house, dried out range cow bones are more economical and abundant for me to test; plus these bones are very demanding on bullet design/construction. :)

You guys don't seem to be applying simple medical knowledge to your assertions.

Hypovolemic shock and CNS damage are the only mechanisms that reliably produce incapacitation. That is a medical fact.

...yet some animals (humans are animals too after all) are imediatly incapcitated from a chest shot even though there is no direct CNS damage.

The effect you are describing is that of a sudden and precipitous drop in blood pressure. Same appearance as fainting or passing out- the subject drops straight to the ground and is unable to perform any intentional dynamic action. That comes from a huge violation of a major vascular structure or organ- not from a few microscopic tears in a few tiny blood vessels.

BPW and the temporary wound channel are both very much capable of being signifigant means of incapcitation.

That is unproven at best.

Fackler was a fool to claim 2000fps was a magic # for TWC to be meaningful, when he should have known dang good and well that 1500 is more than enough for TWC to be meaningful and yet 3000 doesn't guarentee that TWC will be meaningful.

This amounts to a definite "maybe".

For the record I'm definately not advocating using energy as an important determining factor. Placement, penatration and expansion all take precident but to ignore it or say it's not a factor is IMHO foolish.

It is OK to ignore such an unreliable and improbable effect when considering the real world performance of self-defense ammo- that being, the immediate incapacitation of someone who is going to do you grave/lethal injury. Other than that we agree that placement, penetration, and expansion are the most important- heck, you even listed those factors in the same exact order I would've. :)

481

November 21, 2012, 04:32 PM

Conspicuously absent from the website you linked to is the fact that Courtney never contracted with a military branch/LEA to perform terminal ballistic research.

FWIW, I personally asked Courtney this question before he began using the pseudonym of Pasteur.

Also of interest is that both Dr Fackler and Dr Roberts have been employed in that capacity by several different organizations under that category both having worked at Letterman Army Institue of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research and a few others. ;)

hardheart

November 21, 2012, 04:46 PM

The papers written by the Courtneys' are probably the best evidence that BPW doesn't mean anything in service handgun calibers. Unless the most common and popular rounds and handgun combinations in use are generating 500 ft lbs at impact with 1000+ psi. Their proposed ideal rounds either penetrate a minimum 10 inches before violent fragmentation, or are charged with an explosive compound. Courtney posted as much and acknowledged the legal issues with such. I think they are right in their notion that exploding projectiles are more effective, that rounds impacting with the force of high powered rifles cause more remote damage, and that a revolution in materials engineering that would allow deep penetration before explosive fragmentation would increase effectiveness.

I see nothing that says or suggests the current service calibers effect any of this out of handguns, or that the smaller and faster calibers out there do any better with any reliability. The YT videos of gel testing for 5.7 don't give the required 10 inches of penetration before fragmentation, and the rounds can also fail to fragment at all if it is a denim test. I don't think anyone feels an AR/AK pistol is going to become an officer's sidearm.

It seems the most the Courtneys could argue for was that BPW may have some measurable effect on nerve tissue remote to the wound track under high magnification, but not that it reliably speeds up incapacitation. The use of M&S without removing voluntary stops where the individual shot gave up but was still conscious and capable of action skews the numbers terribly. They also have a mathematical model that shows the M&S percentages to be too high unless the rounds reliably and repeatedly fragmented in the vicinity of vital organs. We don't have handguns that do this.

Their numbers are really a 'no duh' kind of situation, that bigger, faster rounds do more damage. The problem is carrying the delivery platform and reliably/repeatedly putting the rounds on target without breaking your wrist or going deaf/blind.

I have 147 HSTs in a full size CZ and 124+P PDX in sub compact. I just bought both, plus plenty of other ammo, including 147 WWB.

Shawn Dodson

November 21, 2012, 07:10 PM

CZ57 writes:

Duncan MacPherson is an MIT educated engineer as well as a disciple of Martin Fackler who's emphasis is little more than penetration being the answer to the question of handgun stopping power with nothing really new or persuasive on the issue.

There are other factors involved in producing reliable rapid incapacitation. Your prejudice blinds you to other equally important factors that have been well articulated by Fackler:

1) Adequate penetration.
2) To reach and damage vitals that are critical to immediate survival.
3) Amount of damage produced in critical tissues (wound severity).

Reliable rapid incapacitation is caused only by what vital structure(s) a JHP handgun bullet comes into direct contact with and how much damage it produces to that structure (wound severity). TYPE of tissue and AMOUNT of damage are what's important.

CZ57 writes:

I agree. The first meaningful (to me) information that I've seen is the work done by BTG Research that explains what the effect of kinetic energy actually means in wound ballistics. http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm

It’s interesting that every medical professional that has taken the time to review the Courtneys’ papers have unanimously stated that the references cited by the Courtneys’ do not support the claims made:

DrJSW (James S. Williams, M.D. @ TacticalAnatomy.com) wrote:

"DocGKR and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits. Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

DrJSW also wrote: When I first ventured into the study of terminal ballistics over a decade ago I had already been practicing as a trauma physician for quite some time... but that didn't make me a ballistician. I realized very quickly that I had a LOT of reading to do before I would be in any kind of position to offer opinions on wound ballistics in any forum: in court, at trauma grand rounds, or on internet bulletin boards. I would like to encourage you to try to get grounded in the necessary disciplines before you go chasing after someone like Dr. Courtney, who by all appearances is a brilliant--if eccentric and often misguided--man. You won't be able to find the errors in his papers/writings unless you've got enough pertinent background knowledge, so I'd suggest you dust off your library card and get to work.

DocGKR (Gary K. Roberts, D.D.S.) wrote: Take the time to read the referenced articles--they do not support the claims of this paper. For that matter, the clinical evidence and outcomes of thousands of patients treated for GSW's and hits to body armor in recent combat clearly highlight the irrelevance of this paper, as do the numerous patients treated for domestic GSW's in this Nation.

More at - http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34407

CZ57 writes: And as to regards concerning the .357 SIG, it is the caliber used by the Texas DPS and the US Secret Sevice. No other agency has more actual gunfighting experience than the Texas DPS/Rangers. That's a historical fact rather than a biased opinion. Take a look at the results at www.m4carbine.net, it's pretty clear what loads perform and what doesn't and this from a listing advocated by another Fackler disciple, Dentist "Doc" Roberts.

The wound profile of 125gr .357SIG is more like 9mm 147gr than .357 Magnum 125gr. The reason is because the .357SIG bullet is specifically designed to remain intact at higher velocity. .357SIG’s greater kinetic energy is expended in making the (expansion-resistant) bullet expand. The result is a temporary cavity not much larger in diameter than 9mm 147gr. The reason why Texas DPS changed from .45 ACP to .357SIG is because it penetrates light barrier materials better.

Originally Posted by C0untZer0

I don't think MacPherson was or is a "disciple" of Fackler. They were working in two different fields and MacPherson wrote his critique of the American Rifleman article in 1975, in which he crticized the Relative Incapacitation Index (RII)

481 writes: I was unaware of that article. Gonna have to look that one up.
It’s titled “Relative Incapacitation BULListics”. It was reprinted in IWBA Wound Ballistics Review, Volume 1, Number 2. PM me if you’d like a copy.

481 writes: Also of interest is that both Dr Fackler and Dr Roberts have been employed in that capacity by several different organizations under that category both having worked at Letterman Army Institue of Research, Division of Military Trauma Research and a few others.

FYI: Roberts was never “worked” at LAIR. Roberts works at Stanford University just south of San Francisco and he visited Fackler and conducted some experiments at LAIR.

Pascal for wound ballistics. LOL. Of course it is Ballistic Pressure Wave. LOL

There are other factors involved in producing reliable rapid incapacitation. Your prejudice blinds you to other equally important factors that have been well articulated by Fackler:

1) Adequate penetration.
2) To reach and damage vitals that are critical to immediate survival.
3) Amount of damage produced in critical tissues (wound severity).

Reliable rapid incapacitation is caused only by what vital structure(s) a JHP handgun bullet comes into direct contact with and how much damage it produces to that structure (wound severity). TYPE of tissue and AMOUNT of damage are what's important.

Perhaps you're wearing the wrong sunglasses. Show me one single case where I have disagreed with 1, 2 or 3. What I am saying is that many of us long-time defensive oriented shooters have believed that there is a quantifiable reason for the importance of KE in wound ballistics and it has been defined by Dr. Courtney as the Ballistic Pressure Wave. In short summary it is a JHP bullet that impacts the thoracic cavity with 500 Ft/Lbs of KE with a penetration depth of 10" that sends a damaging wave to the brain measured at 1000 PSI of Traumatic Brain Injury, or TBI. And as for other opinions, there was research conducted by others like Sorensen et al that preceded Martin Fackler yet he chose to ignore it. If you review the information provided by Courtney you will see that he in fact does have endorsements from MDs which he really doesn't need in light of the fact that 33 autopsies have been conducted to make his claims pretty convincing for BPW. The evidence is the long standing record of the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum. The selection of the .357 SIG by the US Secret Service and more importantly the Texas DPS/Rangers who have more actual gunfighting experience than any LE agency in American history and my personal defense choice, the 185 gr. +P Golden Saber with a momentum of 30 and 534 Ft/Lbs of KE. ;)

His wife, also a PHd in physics is a member of the faculty at the US Military Academy at West Point.

Jaymo

November 21, 2012, 08:25 PM

This isn't going to turn into another pissing contest, is it?
I want to hear more about more different loads for my 9 wussimeter.

Shawn Dodson

November 21, 2012, 08:40 PM

CZ57 writes: Show me one single case where I have disagreed with 1, 2 or 3.

You consistently omit 2 & 3 in your rants.

CZ57 writes: And as for other opinions, there was research conducted by others like Sorensen et al that preceded Martin Fackler yet he chose to ignore it.

I suspect you meant "Suneson" and not "Sorenson"?

Fackler (and others) have pointed out, in the wound ballistics literature, numerous errors in Suneson's work. One Fackler paper, "The 'Shock Wave' Myth", was published in a 1989 issue of the Journal or Trauma that identified errors in Suneson et al.'s paper ""Pressure wave injuries to rat dorsal root ganglion cells in culture caused by high-energy missiles." (Fackler's paper also addresses errors in Suneson et al: "Pressure wave injuries to the nervous system caused by high-energy missile extremity impacts: Part I. Local and distant effects on the peripheral nervous system -- a light and electron microscopic study on pigs", and "Pressure wave injuries to the nervous system caused by high-energy missile extremity impacts: Part II. Distant effects on the central nervous system -- a light and electron microscopic study on pigs.")

It appears to me that, contrary to your assertion, Fackler did not "choose to ignore" Suneson et al.

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 08:46 PM

No pissing contest. As I have said before, the 124 gr. +P Gold Dot has higher KE and MOMENTUM than a standard pressure 147 gr. JHP. The 127 gr. Ranger +P+ load has even more of both. No one here can argue against momentum even if you discount KE. Ultimately, it comes down to the shooters ability to place rounds on target. Personally, I can't understand anyone having issue with shooting +P 124 gr. JHPs in 9mm but consider what I actually carry and almost 35 years of shooting big bore Magnums. My favorite being the .41 Magnum. to me, with proper practice the 124 gr. +P Gold Dot is a pussycat but that's what gets loaded in my 9mm pistols for defense. ;)

Rants? whose ranting now? Like I said, Show me one single case where I've disagreed with necessary penetration to reach vitals or amount of tissue damage. You really call yourself an instructor of pistolcraft? Prove your statement. What I would actually strive for in a self defense shooting scenario would be well placed shots to severe the spinal column. Simple COM like I was properly instructed. After that it would be enough KE to cause 1000 PSI of traumatic brain injury. I actually have taken it a step further if you'd really bothered to pay attention. I feel that the temporary stretch cavity is very underated by Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson.

Thanks for the correction. My wife is the Swede in the house whereas I am merely Norman English. Fackler hasn't provided anything of importance to the issue. Instead, he led the FBI down the rosy path of ammunition failures with the subsonic over-penetrating poor expanding 147 gr. JHP in 9mm of the late 80s. The over-penetrating poor expanding 10mm "Lite" that followed and for an encore, it was the "medium velocity" 165 gr. JHP in .40 S&W. And if he had bothered to consult Suneson et al he would have seen the error of his ways. Instead, he began his own rant against M&S and their flawed data gathering who may not have been aware of the significance of the BPW, but nonetheless, Ed Sanow theorized a long time ago that the ideal range of KE for defensive rounds was 400 - 600 Ft/Lbs and never argued against the merits of penetration that Fackler was so obsessed with. Do you really believe in the Flying Drill Bit theorum of Fackler and his disciples? Even he has changed his tune last time I saw him and very much advocates expansion with penetration, he just doesn't domprehend the BPW theorum evidenced by the fact that he ignored Suneson as well as others referenced by Dr. Courtney. ;)

Jaymo

November 21, 2012, 09:13 PM

I prefer +p 124s in 9mm.
I'm used to shooting a Charter Bulldog .44 Spl, so a 9 is very soft shooting.

As much as I like my Bulldog, my SR9 holds 12 more rounds and the 9 is a much better SD round than it was 20 years ago.
I have no delusions of the 9 being a better manstopper than the .44 Spl Gold Dot, but I think it'll do just fine.

Shawn Dodson

November 21, 2012, 09:24 PM

CZ57 writes: English. Fackler hasn't provided anything of importance to the issue. Instead, he led the FBI down the rosy path of ammunition failures with the subsonic over-penetrating poor expanding 147 gr. JHP in 9mm of the late 80s. The over-penetrating poor expanding 10mm "Lite" that followed and for an encore, it was the "medium velocity 165 gr. JHP in .40 S&W.

I addressed, last month, the exact same misinformation you're posting in this thread. See - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8485892&postcount=94

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 09:25 PM

Jaymo, unlike some I don't pretend that I have the definitive answer, yet I would agree with you for a number of reasons. If anyone wants to take it a step further than what a good 124 gr. +P JHP will do in 9mm, they'd better be prepared to deal with the extra recoil generated by the 147 gr. +P JHP that puts the 9mm on an even playing field with the .40 S&W. ;)

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 09:30 PM

I addressed, last month, the exact same misinformation you're posting in this thread. See - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....2&postcount=94

Again, you fail to show where I disagree with points 1, 2 or 3. Why don't you try to argue the facts I presented concerning Martin Fackler's track record that led the FBI to 3 ammunition failures? That is on the record. Personally, in light of your failure to prove anything you've accused me of, I wouldn't recommend anyone spend $.10 cents for your training or supposed expertise. ;)

Jaymo

November 21, 2012, 09:41 PM

I'm also a huge fan of .45 ACP. I've never owned a .40, and don't plan on it. I have big, fat, and heavy. I have small, fast, and hicap.
I don't need to complicate my ammo supply logistics by adding something in the middle.

As far as handgun stopping power goes, I think we can all agree that the best handgun round is a piss poor substitute for a 12 gauge shotgun.
It's just a matter of what we can actually carry every day.
I just can't seem to fit a cop in my holster.

CZ57

November 21, 2012, 09:51 PM

Jaymo, there you go! I would suggest though that you take a hard look at the SA XDm in .45 ACP. 14 rounds of .45 ACP in whatever configyration you like best. Nonetheless, I don't feel handicapped in using a 9mm loaded with 124 gr. +P Gold Dots and my money is where my mouth is as that's exactly what I use, or a handload that surpasses the performance of factory ammo, but that's another story. Nothing in handgun rounds beats a 12 gauge in any case. ;)

Shawn Dodson

November 21, 2012, 09:56 PM

CZ57 writes: Again, you fail to show where I disagree with points 1, 2 or 3.

It appears there's a misunderstanding. I pointed out that you consistently omit any mention of 2 & 3. Examples:

...Martin Fackler who's emphasis is little more than penetration being the answer to the question of handgun stopping power...

See - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8523371&postcount=69

...for those that don't know, it was Martin Fackler's theories dominated by penetration...

See - http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8485268&postcount=88

So you acknowledge there's more to "Fackler's theory" than just penetration? It appears you agree that "Fackler's theory" consists of adequate penetration to reliably reach and damage vitals critical to immediate survival, and the type of tissues damaged and amount of damage produced determines rapidity of physiological incapacitation?

9mmepiphany

November 21, 2012, 10:00 PM

After the earlier warning on page 3, I see this isn't going to get better and I don't have the patience to edit the thread